





. i * * <^ cr r. » " • * *v> .A .«•'•- <^ d* « • " • « 




*6? 












■'■■■■ tSnaSw^ 



a? ♦•:•'♦ *> 



ip*, 







bv' 





c''^ -^IfijiP^ A^ 
A o, **ty»* A <, 



,0 V o-V.^o 







-^^ 






.0 V .» 

















aV 









JP^*. 






JUSTICE TO THE SOUTH ! 



AN ADDRESS 



BY 



JAMES A. DOEE, 



A MEMBER OF THE NEW- YORK BAR. 



OCTOBER 8, 1856. 



NEW-YORK. 



ADDRESS. 



The country is now calle 1 upon to decide the momentous quo 
What are the respective rights of the North and the South in the terril 
belonging to the United States '. The main issue involved in the pe: 
Presidential election is, — -Are the territories of the United States, acco 
to equity and of right, free soil, from which slavery may be justlj 
properly wholly excluded by a majority of Congress ? Upon this ques- 
tion, the country is divided into two great parties — on the one side, the 
Republican party, so called, represented by John C. Fremont, affirm ing 
the doctrine ; and ou the other side, the Democratic party, represented by 
James Buchanan, and the American party, represented by Millard Fill- 
more, denying the doctrine. 

The Republican or Free Soil party, by their platform, or declaration of 
principles adopted in Convention, announce as part of their creed, — "That 
" the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign power over the territo- 
" ries of the United States, for their government, and that, in the exercise 
" of this power, it is both the right and the duty of Congress to prohibit in 
lt the territories those twin relies of barbarism, polygamy and slu. 
These are the words of the third resolution of the platform of the ] Repub- 
lican, or Free Soil Convention ; and Colonel Fremont, the Free Soil Can- 
dida' e for the Presidency, in his letter of acceptance of that platform, 
dated July 8ih, 185G. says : — "The declaration of principles embodied in 
" the resolves of your Convention expresses the sentiments in which I ! 
" been educate 1, and which have been ripened into convictions by personal 
" observation and experience." " Nothing is clearer in the history of our 
" institutions than the design of the nation in asserting its own hide; 
" ence and freedom to avoid giving countenance to the extension of slav- 
" ery." " The great body of non-slaveholding free men, including tho 
" the South, upon wdiose welfare slavery is an oppression, will discover that 
" the power of the General Government over thepublic lands may be b 
" ficially exerted to advance their interests, and secure their independei 
These are the words of John C. Fremont, the Republican, or Free Soil 
candidate for the Presidency. 

Here, then, we have the platform and the future policy of the Republic ud 
party clearly and distinctly announced, namely, — "To prohibit slavery in 
" the territories of the United States," and "to evert the power o 



" General Government to advance the interests of the non-slaveholding 
" free men, including: those of the South, upon -whose welfare slavery is 
" an oppression." I can hardly believe my eyes when I read these words ; 
hut they are the precise words of the platform and of Colonel Fremont. 

I would now ask you, citizens of the North, have you given to the 
consideration of this platform and this announced policy, the serious and 
patient attention which their importance merit? Have you reflected 
upon them with due regard to the rights of the South ? and, what is per- 
haps more important, the duties of the North ? Have you fully and faith- 
fully studied and reflected upon the subject, and are you prepared to af- 
firm that the proposed policy of the Republican party is either just, or 
honourable, or generous, or fraternal, or wise and expedient ? for it must 
be all of these before any good and patriotic citizen can give it his vote 
or his countenance. Are not the citizens of the South our brethren — 
bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh, blood of our blood ? Are they not 
joint tenants and heirs with us of a common inheritance ? Were not the 
institutions under which they live founded and established by our com- 
mon ancestors ? Were not our brethren of the South born in the midst 
of slavery ? Was it by any voluntary act of theirs — did they choose it ? 
Have you forgotten that the time was when the whole region now occu- 
pied and owned by the United States was subject to slavery ? Have you 
forgotten that twelve of the thirteen original States were slave States ? 
Do you deny that, if slavery be an evil, a wrong, and a sin, it is a nation- 
al evil, a national wrong, a national sin ? Does the fact that we of the 
North, favored by climate and by the proximity of the South, have been 
able to rid ourselves of the black race, and so to abolish slavery, justify 
us in requiring of the South that they, under very different circumstances, 
shall follow our example ? And if it were just to require them to follow 
our example, would it not be our bounden duty to aid them, and place 
them, so far as we could, in circumstances similar to our own ? Do you 
suppose that the Northern States which have abolished slavery, would or 
could have done so if the number of slaves had been three millions, or 
in that proportion, in their midst ? And do you suppose that they would 
have done it if there had been no outlet or vent for the black race to the 
South or the West ? Have you forgotten that our slaves were trans- 
ported to the South ? that the South received them ? and that the 
South is now bearing our burden as well as their own ? And now it 
is proposed by the Republican party, led by John C. Fremont, to exclude 
slavery from all present and future territories of the United States, and 
to dam it up" forever, without any possible outlet or vent, in the region 
in which it exists. I would ask every intelligent and honest citizen of 
the North, freesoiler though he may be, are you prepared to advocate 
tliis policy, to dam up slavery forever in the Southern States, by prohibit- 
ing its natural progress towards the South ? And further, are you pre- 
print! to advocate another similar measure supposed to be favored by the 
Republican party, viz. : the prohibition of the inter-State slave trade? 
! ><> you not see that the tendency of these measures is directly contrary 
H> practical free soil? that they would fix and fasten for ever upon Dela- 
ware. Mai) land, Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri and Tennessee, perhaps seve- 



ral other States, the institution of slavery, which is declared to 1"- an op- 
pression '. 1 would ask any intelligent and honesl advocate of free soil, 
is not the freedom of the soil of Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky and Mis- 
souri, abstractly as important as, and to us of the .North incalculably more 
important than, the freedom of the soil of any other region of equal ex 
tent whatsoever \ We know nol what southern territory mag hereafter 
become the territory of the United States, whether by honourable pur- 
chase, or just conquest, or voluntary annexation. If we can hold toge- 
ther a little Longer, it is probable thai in the natural course of events, we 
shall make large acquisitions of southern territory better suited than any 
we possess to the comfortable existence of the black rare; audi must 
say that, as a friend of free soil, as it was understood by Washington, by 
Jefferson, by Franklin, and other wise and good men, I shall hail the day 
of such acquisitions honorably made ; for I doubt not, that were the South 
and slavery left to themselves, every acre of land acquired at the further 
South would liberate an acre in Maryland, Kentucky, Virginia and Mis- 
souri, in the freedom of whose soil we have an immediate and con- 
tiguous interest. 

I have said free soil, as understood by Washington, Jefferson and 
Franklin; but it is said they were in favor of the ordinance of 1787, 
passed for the government of the Northwest Territory, comprehending 
the present State- of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan, — the sixth 
article of which ordinance reads as follows : "There shall be neither slavery 
"nor involuntary servitude in the said territory otherwise than in punish- 
"ment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted : 
"Provided always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom 
" labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, smh 
"fugitive maybe lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming 
''his or her labor or service as aforesaid." This ordinance was passed on 
the 13th July, 1787, under and in virtue of the articles of" Confederation" 
of the States, by the delegates of the confederated States— acting as the 
representatives of the several States — more than two mouths Injure the 
formation of the present Union and adoption of the present Constitution 
of the United States— which took place on the 17th September, 1787. 
I have never heard it doubted that the delegates of the States under the 
Confederation, which was superseded by this Union, had full authority to 
pass the ordinance of 1787 ; I have never heard any man, Northern or 
Southern, doubt the wisdom and expediency of that ordinance. It was 
passed by common consent ol' the North and the South, and dedicated to 
free soil a territory which ought to have been, and probably under any 
circumstances, would long before this have been bee from Slavery. The 
sixth article of that ordinance is supposed to have been proposed by 

Jefferson, — it provides at once for free soil, and for tl secutionofa 

fugitive slave law-; it was approved by Franklin and Washington, and 
has remained undisturbed by further legislation, from that day to this. 
Now I would ask the fair-minded modern free-soiler, what resemblance 
there is between the ordinance of 1787, and bis doctrine? Was it ever 
proposed by Jefferson, Franklin and AVa-hiic_ r ton to dam up slave- and 
slavery in any givenregion! In providing for the freedom of the soil of 



the Northwest Territory, did they prohibit Southerners from entering with 
their slaves upon any and all territories ? Consider the facts of the" case : 
at the very time that the ordinance of 1*787 was passed, Virginia, North 
Carolina and Georgia were the owners, in their own sovereign rights, of 
the territories now forming the States of Kentucky, Tennessee, Ala- 
bama and Mississippi — a territory equal in extent to the Northwest Terri- 
tory ; and that vast region was always open to settlement by citizens from 
the South or the North, with their slaves, and was so settled by them. 
Besides, consider the fair, legal and equitable construction of the ordi- 
nance of 1787 ; does it not follow, as clear as daylight, that if the ordi- 
nance of 1787 had not been passed, Slavery could have legally and 
rightfully gone into the Northwest Territory ? If not, what was the neces- 
sity of the ordinance? And is it not the natural, just and proper infer- 
ence that the co-operation of Jefferson, Franklin and Washington, in the 
ordinance of 1787, was an admission and recognition by them, that unless 
the ordinance were passed, Slavery could, and would rightfully establish 
itself in the Northwest Territory ? 

On the 17th of September, 1787, the present Constitution of the United 
States was adopted ; and in virtue thereof the former confederacy of 
States, represented by delegates of the States, was superseded, and the 
present Union of the people of the States, represented by a House of 
Representatives and a Senate, was established. Let us consider the Con- 
stitution of the United States, and the early Acts of Congress under it, 
in reference to the question of modern free soil. It is affirmed by the 
Republican party, led by John C. Fremont, that " the Constitution confers 
" upon Congress sovereign power over the territories of the United States, 
" for their government ; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both 
" the right and the duty of Congress to prohibit Slavery in the territories." 
The only reference in the Constitution of the United States to any power 
of Congress over the territories, is in the second clause of Section 3d., 
Article 4th, of the Constitution, which reads as follows : — " The Congress 
" shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations 
" respecting the territory, or other property belonging to the United 
"States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to 
"prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State." 

The whole authority of Congress over the subject rests upon the 
wor Is, — " power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations 
" respecting the territory, or other property belonging to the United States ;" 
and these wor.ls are construed by the Republican or free soil party to 
grant sovereign powers of jurisdiction, including the right to exclude 
Southerners, with their institutions, from the territories. Now, I would 
ask any intelligent and lair-minded man if the proper, just, legal and 
honorable construction of this provision of the Constitution is not, — that 
the Unite 1 States— all the United States — each and every one of them, 
have a vested right of property in the territories of the United States? 
Are not the present territories of the United States the joint acquisitions 
of the Unite. I States, purchased or conquered by the common treasures 
and common forces of the United States — all of them— Northern and 
South* in, slaveholding and free alike ? Have we been partners to acquire, 



and are we not partners to enjoy 1 h it just or honourable for the North to 
say to the South, you may pay for and conquer the Ian Is, bul you shall 
not settle upon them! Your institutions are good enough to aid in 
acquiring, hut not good enough to participate in the benefits of the 

acquisitions! What Borl of justu • honour is that! Whv, it' the 

North had joined the South in a scheme of rapine and plunder, even 
honor among thieves would, require a fair division of the spoils; and "a 
fortiori," shouM we lie just, honourable, and even generous, when it is a 
case of honest purchase, as of the Louisiana Territory, and of our firien Is 
and brethren o\' the South. I do not see bo\i anyjusl or honourable man 
can deny that the South have a veste 1 right of property in the territories 
of the Unite 1 States — -a right of property specifically recognized in the 
article of the Constitution quote I, which Bays—" respecting the territory 
"and other property belonging to the Unite I States." Now, what is this 
property pertaining to the territories, if it he not the right to settle and 
occupy '. And if you exclude the South from settlement and occupation, 
what remains to them of their property i 

But consider a little more carefully the guarded words of the Consti- 
tution, " Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful 
"rules an 1 regulations respecting the territory and other property beiong- 
'■ ing to the United States :" " all needful rules and regulations respecting 
the territory and other property.'' One would say that the word needful, 
if it mean anything, means needful to protect and defend to the rightful 
owners the title and enjoyment of the property. But what say the Re- 
publican party, and John 0. Fremont I They say, we construe the word 
needful to mean that we shall take their title away from the South, and 
give the exclusive enjoyment to the North : and this is needful, because 
we think that slavery is an oppression. That may he good reasoning for 
Mr. Fremont, but I do not think that his view would he sustained by any 
court of justice, or by any honest man, fully informed and competent to 
decide the question. If that be good law, or good reason, or good sense, or 
good in point of honesty or of honour, I do not Bee w hit defence the South 
have against any encroachments whatsoever on the part of the North, 
except such defence as they derive from themselves and their inalienable 
rights and powers. But let US see what light can he drawn from the 
early action of Congress in reference to the subject of slavery and free soil 
in the territories. The first Act of Congress respecting this subject, sub- 
Be jtient to the adoption of the Constitution, was the Ad of April 2, 1790, 
" To accept a cession of tbe claims of the State of North Carolina toacer- 
" tain district of Western Territory" — the territory now forming the State of 
Tennessee. In the fourth article of that act of cession and acceptance, \\e 
real as follows: "Provided always, that no regulations made, or to !>• 
"made, by Congress, shall ten 1 to emancipate sla\ es,"and the same provision 
was subsequently agreed to by Congress in an Act acceptingthe cession by 
Georgia of the territory now forming the States of Alabama and Missis- 
sippi. "We thus see what was the understanding of the Southern States in 
reference to free soil in the territories in which they had an interest ; and 
we also see that neither Congress, nor Washington, who was then Presi- 
dent of the United States, had any Bcruples as to the propriety of acquir- 



{fig and accepting- for the United States, vast territories, with the express 
stipulation that " no regulations made, or to be made by Congress, shall 
" tend to emancipate slaves." They did not think that free soil regulations 
were " needful." And afterwards, acting upon these precedents and exam- 
ples, Congress, by the treaty of April 30, 1803, purchased from France the 
territory of Louisiana, with slavery, and without any free soil regulations. 
Of that territory Kansas and Nebraska, as well as Arkansas, Missouri, 
Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and vast additional regions to the north and 
west, are parts. And later, by the treaty of February 22d, 1819, Con- 
gress purchased from Spain the territory of Florida, with slavery, and 
without any free-soil regulations. From the foregoing, it may be inferred 
that up to the date — February, 1819 — it was the opinion of Congress, 
and the sense of the country, that a free-soil limitation was not a " need- 
ful " regulation respecting the territories of the United States. 

But the free-soiler will ask, how is it in the case of the Missouri Com- 
promise ? Was not that a free-soil regulation ? To which I reply, it 
certainly was not, in any honest view or construction, a free-soil regula- 
tion. It would be equally correct to call it a regulation for the extension 
of slavery. The act of March 6, 1820, commonly called the Missouri 
Compromise, was, in fact, the drawing of geographical lines, namely, the 
north line of the State of Missouri, in latitude 41 degrees, or nearly, and 
the line of 36 degrees, 30 minutes, to the west of Missouri, and prohibit- 
ing slavery north of those lines, and by fair inference, as well as by then 
existing law and custom, allowing slavery south of those lines. This 
being so — and no person acquainted with the history of the country will de- 
ny it — the Missouri Compromise was simply a law drawing lines of demar- 
cation which Congress at that time deemed it expedient to draw between the 
two different forms of society existing, one at the North, the other at the 
South, in the United States. I do not intend to enter upon the ques- 
tion of the expediency of drawing those geographical lines of demarca- 
tion ; it may have been the best and the only peaceful solution possible of 
the political difficulties of that day; it pacified the country. It af- 
fords to us of the present day a precedent and an example of a spirit of 
compromise, which we may imitate with advantage. That compromise 
recognized and admitted the legal and equitable right of the South to 
settle and occupy with her forms of society, a fair portion of the common 
lands ; it did not exclude the South and Slavery from the territories of the 
United States, as is proposed by the Free-soil or Fremont party of our 
day ; it recognized the principle of the right of the South to 
expand and extend itself into the territories. Admitting that it was 
expedient by the Act of March 6th, 1820, to draw geographical lines, 
limiting the expansion of the two different forms of society, it seems to 
me that the lines were unfortunately selected; it was not politic, as I 
think, to draw the Northern line of demarcation upon two different and 
distant parallels of latitude : the North line of Missouri and the line of 
demarcation further West, should have been either on one and the same 
parallel of latitude, or following the course of some great river. I attri- 
bute to this oversight in framing the Missouri Compromise, a great 
portion of the present agitation on the subject of Slavery, or Freedom in 



the territories. Missouri, as a Slave State, was lefl completely uncovered 
by the line of 86 degrees 30 minutes; having Illinois :i free State on the 
east, [owa a free State on the north, and Kansas a free territon <»n the 
west. Missouri was a peninsula of Slavery, projecting into (he ru 
ocean of freedom. It is but natural that Missouri and the South should 
desire to protect their western frontier by geographical lines. In the 
equitahle adjustment of the present difficulties, this poinl Bhould be fairly 
considered, and every reasonable concession Bhould be made to the 
natural tears and desires of our Southern brethren, in relation to a matter 
which they deem of the greatest importance td their interests and their 
security. Considering the rapid growth <>f anti-slavery and free-soil 
opinions at the North, and considering tin' greal superiority of the North 
over the South in numbers, wealth and power, W6 cannot Maine tin- South 
for desiring to protect itself from the consequences of changes of public 
opinion and of public conscience at the North in relation to Slavery : all 
we can fairly ask of the South is, that in devising and prosecuting their 
measures of protection, they shall proceed according to law, equity and 
honour. As the laws of the United States now stand, the geographical 
line of demarcation between the North and the South in tie- territi 
has been abolished, and according to the present exist ing laws, the terri- 
tories are thrown open to settlers, both from the North and the South, 
with or without slaves, and the majority of the Bottlers are allowed to 
determine whether or not slavery shall exist among them. 

A great cause of the present agitation and excitement at the North, is 
the belief that the laws of the United States have not been faithfully 
and fairly observed and executed in Kansas, and that the opinion and 
decision of the majority of settlers have not been fairly .ascertained. 
If this be so, and so far as I can judge from the evidence made public 
in this region, the tact appears to be so. there should bean entirely new 
ascertainment of the will of the majority of bona fide settlers in Ka 
Nothing short of this will satisfy or ought to satisfy the North. The North 
will certainly insist upon fair play in Kansas ; the North has vested rights 
under the laws in the common lands of Kansas, and duty and honour, as 
well as good policy, require that the South shall fully and fairly recognize 
and respect those rights. We have no reason to doubt, and I do not 
doubt, that the South, considered as a unit, is disposed to recognize and re- 
Bpecl them. The South is not responsible tor the acts of pro-slavery 
fanatics any more than the North is responsible for the words and ac 
anti-slavery fanatics. Let the patriotic and honest men of both North and 
South unite against the fanatics of both sides, and of all side-;. It is not 
my place to advise the Republican party as to their political creed or 
their platform, and if it were, it is now too late to do so ; but I think that 
their chances of success would have been very much increased it' they had 
limited themselves to simply demanding fair play in Kansas. Theyinade a 
great mistake when they united themselves with the Anti-Slavery party, 
and laid as the corner-stone and foundation of their creel the doctrine 
that it is the duty of Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories. I 
do not see how any patriotic or honest man, understanding the Bubject, 
can go with them in this acl of aggression. 



10 

To propose to exclude the South from all participation in the benefits 
of the common lands of the country ! What is it — but to propose 
a grand scheme of -plunder and robbery ? Are we not one family, 
and are not the territories a common domain ? Do you suppose that 
the South will quietly submit to the execution of any such acts of 
Congress, if they should be passed ? Do you suppose that the South 
will for a moment co-operate in a Congress undertaking to pass such 
acts? I do not profess to foresee what the South or parts of the 
South may do, or attempt to do, upon the simple election of Fremont, if 
he should be elected. Fremont being elected upon such a platform, the 
South will be its own rightful judge what tbe South ought to do. It will 
be a very serious state of things, and though I hope that the South will wait 
to ascertain whether or not it will be proposed to put the aggressive 
doctrine into practical execution, I admit that I have fears that the 
South will wait no longer ; but that, deeming the election of Fremont a 
decisive and certain indication of the intention of the North to put into ex- 
ecution the political creed which will then be ratified by a majority of the 
votes of the country, the South will act accordingly. And my fears are 
increased — because from history I have learnt, that in times of civil com- 
motion and revolution, in genera) the audacious and the rash lead the 
moderate and prudent ; because the Southern character is ardent and im- 
petuous ; and because it is a point of honour among the Southern States 
and Southerners that they will stand by each other in defence of their 
form of society whenever attacked. Suppose that Virginia or South Caro- 
lina or Georgia should secede from the Union in the event of Fremont's 
election ; it would be a point of honour of all the Southern States to pro- 
tect the seceding State against coercion, and from all harm and damao-e 
because of her secession. It is the settled opinion at the South, very 
generally and almost unanimously held, that the election of Fremont on 
the Republican platform — would justify each and every Southern State in 
seceding, and would tender to each and every Southern State the option to 
remain in the Union, or to go out of it. The great danger is in the point of 
honour; if one State should go, will not all the Southern States go with her ? 

It is difficult to conceive on what grounds the Republican or Free Soil 
party rely, when they expect the South to submit to be excluded from all 
participation in the territories. The inhabitants are of our own stock, 
lovers of land, and animated by the same instinct which we have to occupy 
and settle new territories. History goes not back to the time when our race 
did not endeavor to expand and extend itself into new territories. Witness 
the Goth in Italy and in Rome ; the Norman in France, and afterwards 
in Great Britain ; the Anglo Saxon in England ; the English in America, 
Australia, Asia ; the New Englander in Iowa ; the Virginian in Missouri ; 
and both the New Englander and the Virginian in Kansas. There is a 
family likeness among all these, and a resemblance in their deeds. It is 
in the blood. On what grounds the Republican party rely when they ex- 
pect the South to quietly surrender their rights in the common lands, I 
cannot imagine ; and I will venture to say there are no good and safe 
grounds for such a reliance. 

We are informed by Colonel Fremont, in his letter of acceptance, of 
July 8th, 1856, that the " genial region of the middle latitudes left to 



il 

emigrants of the Northern States for homes, cannol be 
"the free laborers, who have long .1 il Bel apart lor theni in our 

"inheritance, without provoking a 

stamped with the family lib i rred to; and j 

and his party expeci a branch of the Bame ra 
I, to submit to be excluded from all th" territories and d 
their inheritance withoul a desperate Btruggle! 

Bu1 say the free soil party, we have the majority—we of the North are 
seventeen millions, while they of the South arc only Beven mi 

(he power, and we will mat e the South submit. As a Northern man, 
1 rejoice in the Btrength of the North; I rejoice! in it for itself, for the 
dependence and security against aggression which it gives, and still more 
because it enables the possessor to do, as well as to exact, justi 

" It is excellent 
To have a 

But when that strength is to be perverted to purposes of plunder and 
robbery, to the stripping of our brethren of their inheritance, I could wish 
that the giant were not so strong — 

" It is exc ' 
To have a giant's strength; but it is tyranni 
Ton-- jiant" 

Justice is better than strength, and I will venture the assertion. 
er than strength ; and I would warn the Republican and free soil party, at 
the outset, of their career, that, if having the majority even, they under- 
take to do that which is unjust — by which t mean, that if the}- undertake 
to exclude the South from the territories of the United States, they will 
fail in their attempt, and their strength will be shattered. The lovers of 
justice will be against them in the North ; and the South, united by a com- 
mon sentiment, by common dangers, and a common necessity, will remain 
and be the largest, the most solid, and the most powerful fragment of 
the Union. Pennsylvania and New-York will not join with Massachus 
in any such crusade against the South. Speaking for the city of New- York, 
with its population, and its wealth, she would, in case of such a projected 
crusade, join with the South against Massachusi Its; and speaking for myself 
I solemnly declare, that I also in such a case should join with the South. 
Piorn in Massachusetts, I love the place of my birth ; but I love justice and 
honourmore. It is painful to contemplate even in imagination the catastro- 
phe of a dissolution of this Union, compared with the evils of which, all the 
evils pertaining to or alleged against slavery, are but as the dust in the 
balance; but if that calamity is to come, let not the free soil party imagine 
that the North will remain a unit for the purpose of making war upon 
South. New relative positions, and new interests connected with them, 
or even the already existing diverse, if not hostile interests, reL ased from 
existing bonds and obligations, will lead to new political combinations. 
Is it likely that New-York, deeply interested as she is in the establishment 
of free trade, will then consent to the imposition of a high tariff, tor the 
benefit of the manufacturers of New England \ Is it li! 



12 

A dissolution of the Union ! Annihilation of the political hopes of the 
whole human race ! Extinguishment of the great Light of Liberty, 
shining with cheering rays, like a beacon light across the dark and 
dreary waste of the waters of despotism ! Let us not descend to calcu- 
late the pecuniary value of the Union, to compute the sum total of the 
losses and sacrifices that would attend its destruction. The very blood of 
the individual martyrs who might die in the defence of justice and honour, 
however precious, becomes as nothing, in contemplation of that vast 
calamity. This Union dissolved ! It would be as though the Sun were 
blotted from the firmament : darkness and despair would cover the 
earth : political darkness and despair immutable, hopeless, final : 

" Put out the light, — and then put out the light. 
If I quench thee, thou flaming minister, 
I can again thy former light restore 
If I repent me : — but once put out thine, 
I know not where is the Promethean heat, 
That can thy light relume." 

Would that my voice could reach to the Penobscot, and beyond the 
Penobscot, to the Mississippi, and beyond the Mississippi ! I would say 
to the inhabitants of this wide region, this now united domain, — Men of 
the North ! strong in numbers, you have yet the power to control the 
destinies of the country ! Use this great advantage wisely, and you will 
preserve it ; abuse it, and it will be lost to you forever. Deal gently 
with your brethren of the South ; push them not to a dangerous extreme ! 
Abjure a platform which prompts you to despoil your brother of his 
inheritance ; follow not a leader, who would conduct you to disunion, 
perhaps to civil war ! Sacrifice something even of your rights on the 
altar of patriotism ! Concede something even to the supposed compara- 
tive weakness of the South ! Remember the advice of the wisest states- 
man of Great Britain, given to Parliament, counselling moderation in 
their treatment of the American colonies, then about to secede from their 
union with Great Britain — " Concession comes with better grace and 
more salutary effect from superior power — it reconciles superiority of 
power with the feelings of men, and establishes solid confidence on the 
foundations of affection and gratitude." And I would add, — Men of the 
Middle States ! You hold the central position, and should not hold extreme 
opinions : in your hands rests the balance of power. It is your natural 
and proper prerogative to be the mediator between the North and the 
South. Exercise your prerogative ! Arrest the tide of advancing fanati- 
cism, and say, " Thus far, and no farther!" Rebuke the troubled waters 
and to the furious waves say, " Peace ! be still !" 



<8*°«* 










A V ^ 

4? 



G* V *^Kr* A <, 






*H 






> .0 *+ *„„<,> ^ o •.,,- <0 *$> 



*£> 






G • 






<£ 

X 






^* A^ ^, o-^v V , 










%5> 






^. 



°«i> ""• ^° ^> 






r, w l 



.^ 













o > 



°* •••' 






;•: %/ 












tr. f«D 






•: : : ^tiMi 



